Dismissed

Sushila Kanwr Rathor v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Jul 2023SAW/545/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a special appeal against the Single Judge's order rejecting the appellants' request for a second wait/reserve list for the post of Teacher Gr.III. The Court upheld the dismissal, finding no illegality in the State's action and noting the appellants' failure to join despite being in the first list. The special appeal was dismissed with no case for interference

What did the court decide?

The special appeal was dismissed with no case for interference made out; the writ petition was not allowed.

Sushila Kanwr Rathor Vs State of Rajasthan — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:21763-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 545/2023

¶4

Sushila Kanwr Rathor D/o Shri Madho Singh Rathor, Aged About 35 Years, 17/56, Mukhta Prasad Nagar, Bikaner, (Raj.).

¶5

Sona Tailor, Aged About 40 Years, House No. 03, Hanuman Nagar, Nadi Ka Fatak, Ward No. 05, Benad Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶6

Priyanka Nehra, Aged About 32 Years, 262, Jato Ki Basti, P.o. Bharang, Tehsil Taraagar, District Churu (Raj.)

¶7

Reenu Choudhary, Aged About 36 Years, C-901 A, New Loha Mandi Road, 4 C Scheme, Near Sbi Bank, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

Swati, Aged About 29 Years, Raghuveerpura, Tehsil Rajgarh, Dist. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶9

----Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶12

Principal Secretary Education Department (Elementary), Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶13

The Director, Elementary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner 4. Srugyan, Vpo Dhingpura, Via Bay, Tehsil Dataramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶14

Sunita Bhunkariya, Ward No. 10, Govati, District Sikar, (Raj.)

¶15

Hemraj Singh Choudhary, Village Surajgarh, Post Sorai, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sushil Bishnoi For Respondent(s) :

¶18

(2 of 5)

¶19

[2023:RJ-JD:21763-DB]

¶20

[SAW-545/2023]

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

¶22

Judgment

¶23

17/07/2023

¶24

This special appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved with the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16707/2021 whereby the said writ petition along with other connected writ petitions have been dismissed.

¶25

Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents on 11.09.2017, the appellants applied for selection on the post of Teacher Gr.III Level 2. In the said advertisement, total advertised posts were 927 and the State Government, after concluding the selection process, issued select list on 30.01.2018, which contained names of 924 selected candidates, however, out of those candidates, only 37 posts were filled in.

¶26

At that stage some of the candidates, who had applied, pursuant to the said advertisement, approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17360/2018 (Urmila Devi & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others) with the prayer that the respondents may be directed to publish and operate the wait/reserve list as per Rule 277A of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, (hereinafter to be referred ‘as the Rules of 1996’). The said writ petition came to be allowed by a learned Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.01.2019, wherein the respondents-Department was directed to issue reserve list in

¶27

[2023:RJ-JD:21763-DB]

¶28

[SAW-545/2023]

¶29

(3 of 5)

¶30

terms of Rule 277A of the Rules of 1996 within a period of one week.

¶31

The order dated 07.01.2019 came to be challenged by the State Government before Division Bench of this Court by way of D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 924/2019, however, the Division Bench has dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 07.01.2020, while directing the respondents to operate the wait list only to the extent of the posts vacant as on date.

¶32

The State Government, pursuant to the directions given by this Court, issued wait/reserve list on 19.12.2020 qua 874 seats. It is the case of the appellants that out of those 874 candidates, whose names were figured in the wait/reserve list, many of them did not join, or were not found suitable for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III Level 2 during the course of the documents verification. As such the appellants filed the aforesaid writ petition essentially with a prayer that the respondents-State may be directed to issue another wait list.

¶33

Learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case has dismissed the said writ petition vide impugned order.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants without appreciating the facts of the present case. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants never prayed for issuance of the second reserve list but only prayed that the respondents be directed to prepare the reserve list as per proviso to Rule 277A of the Rules of 1996.

¶35

[2023:RJ-JD:21763-DB]

¶36

[SAW-545/2023]

¶37

(4 of 5)

¶38

It is also contended that from the facts of the case, it is clear that the respondents have not prepared the wait/reserve list as per proviso to Rule 277A of the Rules of 1996 and, therefore, the action of the respondents is liable to be set aside and the reliefs sought for by the appellants in the writ petition are liable to be granted.

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record.

¶40

It is to be noticed that in the advertisement itself it is clearly mentioned that the appointment will be provided to the selected candidates, whose names are figured in the wait/reserve list, by the concerned Zila Parishad after verification of the documents. The concerned Zila Parishad have provided appointments to the suitable candidates after verification of their documents as per the conditions of the advertisement.

¶41

It is also noticed the appellants have participated in the selection process without raising any objection regarding the said criteria adopted by the concerned Zila Parishad and when their names are not figured in the select list they have preferred the said writ petition. This fact itself is sufficient for refusing any relief to the appellants.

¶42

Apart from that, the learned Single Judge has extensively dealt with the provisions of the Rules as well as the conditions mentioned in the advertisement and rightly held that the respondents have not committed any illegality in issuing the wait/reserve list and the same is in consonance with provision of Rule 277A of the Rules of 1996.

¶43

[2023:RJ-JD:21763-DB]

¶44

[SAW-545/2023]

¶45

(5 of 5)

¶46

Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and after going through the material available on record, we are of the view that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, while denying relief to the appellants, are just and proper and supported by the settled law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court as well as by this Court.

¶47

Hence, no case for interference is made out, the special appeal is dismissed.

¶48

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J

¶49

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶50

14-Arti/-

Sushila Kanwr Rathor v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushila Kanwr Rathor v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs C.C.E.JAIPUR-2 and Anr.

In Re a Ref U/S 395 (2) Crpc by Family Court Churu Vs Unknown

M/S. J. K. Electricals Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Jeevan Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

M/S J.K. Cement Works Vs Union of India

State of Rajasthan Vs Govind Singh Detha